Cartier-Bresson - Surrealism and communism!

Move along now please, move along, nothing new to see here.

I think the OP should reconsider his opening sentence:

Almost everything you know about Henri Cartier-Bresson is wrong.

I have, as I sure many others have, read extensively about HCB and I can assure the OP that most of what I know is not wrong. There is nothing "new" here at all just the usual attempts to whip up publicity for an "event".

It may be it causes the OP to "step back in amazement" as everything he knows about Henri Cartier-Bresson is wrong but please don't include the rest of the world especially those on Rff without sound evidence of our combined ignorance. ( well not on this topic anyway)
 
A lot of people were communist at the time. No shame there. Pablo Picasso was also a communist. So was my Grandfather a doctor in Spain who defended the democratically elected government against Fascist Franco. Doesn't make them Stalinist murders. They genuinely wanted to improve the lot of the working class. You can see this in their work.

The world we live in today needs some Communism too I think. Having a privatised global money supply is what caused the current crisis. The vision of artists is always political.

Interestingly also is the fact that CB did not want to be labelled a Surrealist.
 
From that generation, I think people like Alfred Eisenstaedt, Dorothea Lange, Bert Hardy and Margaret Bourke-White produced pictures that I find much more interesting. In fact, I think that Henri Cartier-Bresson's reputation comes more from a tiny clique of publicists than from the general appeal of his pictures.
 
His political beliefs are moot. Unless one of his photos contains an explicit statement of politicality, then the people that worry about these things are only quibbling over visual implication. Moreover, worrying about Cartier-Bresson's intentions (for the meaning of his photos) is plainly an intentional fallacy.

Little definition for that last phrase right here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289889/intentional-fallacy
 
wilonstott said:
His political beliefs are moot. Unless one of his photos contains an explicit statement of politicality, then the people that worry about these things are only quibbling over visual implication. Moreover, worrying about Cartier-Bresson's intentions (for the meaning of his photos) is plainly an intentional fallacy.

Little definition for that last phrase right here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289889/intentional-fallacy
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Wanting to see Cartier-Bresson's work through a politics prism biased by today's mentalities is stupid.
 
Henri Cartier-Bresson made the well-known comment that “the world is falling to pieces and all Adams and Weston photograph is rocks and trees”.

He didn’t think about photography as art so much as simple expression of truth. He often spoke badly of “artists” such as Ansel Adams and preferred a journalistic style that counted more on capturing what was happening rather than making it pretty.

This is a deeply political statement when you consider the times and how Nazism etc. harked back to a more romantic view of what should be depicted vs. the lefts more modern warts and all approach.

But its all relative of course.. Along came Robert Frank and made Bresson look like Ansel Adams!
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140554

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140554

Henri Cartier-Bresson created Magnum,with Capa and others,
to benefit with and by "Copyright" the ownership of their images!
Magnum set a new standard. One that each of us benefit from.

You may not like his work.
I simply adore the range and depth.
HCB covered not only scenes, but portraiture, landscapes etc.
All with a fine eye.
The sense of his compositions are really magic.
 
leicapixie said:
All with a fine eye.
The sense of his compositions are really magic.
Click to expand...

Yes Bressons work is not obvious and can get richer with repeat viewings because you see more each time you come back to it. The repeating shapes in the man leaping the puddle. How many leaping images in the background that mimic the guy jumping? Without Bresson maybe no Frank. I think Frank said Bresson was huge influence.

Adams, Weston West Coast School (previsualists and not to be confused with preconceived) Bresson, Frank, Winogrand East School (post visualists) both are very valid approaches and one not better than the other just different.
 
I love them all too.

By the way, the puddle pic was an accident. Bresson himself admitted it. He could not actually see what was happening as he was behind a fence, only enough space to poke the lens through a small opening.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Yes Bressons work is not obvious and can get richer with repeat viewings because you see more each time you come back to it. The repeating shapes in the man leaping the puddle. How many leaping images in the background that mimic the guy jumping? Without Bresson maybe no Frank. I think Frank said Bresson was huge influence.

Adams, Weston West Coast School (previsualists and not to be confused with preconceived) Bresson, Frank, Winogrand East School (post visualists) both are very valid approaches and one not better than the other just different.
Click to expand...

... I think it was Frank who advised Henri to keep quiet about the surrealism thing
 
Ansel said:
Henri Cartier-Bresson made the well-known comment that “the world is falling to pieces and all Adams and Weston photograph is rocks and trees”.

He didn’t think about photography as art so much as simple expression of truth. He often spoke badly of “artists” such as Ansel Adams and preferred a journalistic style that counted more on capturing what was happening rather than making it pretty.

This is a deeply political statement when you consider the times and how Nazism etc. harked back to a more romantic view of what should be depicted vs. the lefts more modern warts and all approach.
Click to expand...


Okay, well that statement also does not contain overt and explicit political content. I understand that "falling to pieces" is a negative statement, but held up to scrutiny, it's altogether vague. Also, be careful about assigning content to anyones thoughts (e.g. "He didn't think..."); we can only ever talk about what Cartier-Bresson explicitly "said" or "wrote"--we don't (and never will) have access to interiority.

I understand that citeable quotations may exist that contain some type of underlying logos, but his political ideas (however he may have articulated them) do not extend to his photographs.

If we view his photos as "texts" and him as author, then we can only talk about "meaning" in terms of what is actually displayed in any given photo--its content (which includes form).

The relevant point is even if he intended a political message with his photos, it still doesn't matter. The point is still moot.

If you read Roland Barthes's 1967 essay "Death of the Author," this idea is articulated very clearly.

Here's a wiki for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

Barthes contends, "To give a text an Author" and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text" (pulled the from the wiki, but I've got the actual essay around somewhere).

Following from Barthes, one thing that needs to be emphasized is that no one (not even the author, as counter-intuitive as that may seem) has the ability to impose definitive meaning onto a text (or photo, in our case).

Sure, we can look for evidence of politicality in his photos, but this is a more or less vain pursuit--there is no definitive meaning or interpretation thereof beyond what we can ascertain from the actual content (and even then, meaning is debatable).

Long story short: 1) We can't know what he thought, only what he explicitly stated. 2) The art stands alone, the author is dead (metaphorically, but in this case, literally, as well), and his intentions don't matter.
 
Ansel said:
I love them all too.

By the way, the puddle pic was an accident. Bresson himself admitted it. He could not actually see what was happening as he was behind a fence, only enough space to poke the lens through a small opening.
Click to expand...

Right... he also admitted in a You Tube Interview that a lot of luck is involved...
You can be ready for a photo... but be a fraction of a second off.. and you missed the "Best" [decisive] moment.

HCB had a good background in art and geometry within the canvas or frame

Having a good compositional eye and a little thinking ahead is the best we can do. How fast we react to see and take the photo can improve with practice. But, there is still gap of lag time with us and the camera.
 
Ansel said:
I love them all too.

By the way, the puddle pic was an accident. Bresson himself admitted it. He could not actually see what was happening as he was behind a fence, only enough space to poke the lens through a small opening.
Click to expand...

Not that it matters really, but where did this admission come from. I read that he was aware when he took the image that he would have to crop a fence from the edge of the frame as he couldn't avoid having it in the shot, which would imply he knew what he was shooting.
Is your contention that walking along the road he spies a slight gap in a fence, and not knowing what's on the other sticks his lens through and takes a completely random shot which turns out to be a masterpiece?
Sounds extremely unlikely, but if you can point me to the quote I remain open to the possibility.
 
Ok, I found the quote, it's from an interview he gave in 2001 when he was 92.
Given I've read about cropping the fence which clashes with this later assertion of dumb luck, I think I'll go with him taking the piss in the 2001 interview.
 
What I am not so sure about is the surrealism.. Not seen any of his images that are surrealistic. I wonder what they have discovered in this latest exhibition. Probably just marketing to get people to go and see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom